ATLANTA – Last week, State Representative Matt Ramsey (R-Peachtree City) introduced the “Illegal Immigration Reform Enforcement Act of 2011,” or HB 87. The Libertarian Party of Georgia opposes the bill, citing the huge cost to enforce it even though the General Assembly is tasked with a nearly $2 billion budget crisis. They also say that the bill could have catastrophic effects on the economic well-being of the state, as well as in the lives of its residents if passed.
As proposed, HB 87 would make criminals of many otherwise law abiding Georgians trying to make a living. The bill makes it a criminal offense by merely “encouraging” an illegal immigrant to enter the state. It also allows almost any citizen to bring a lawsuit against any business, local or State government agency or official by just accusing them of violating immigration law. Further, HB 87 burdens every employer doing business in Georgia with using the Department of Homeland Security’s E-Verify system.
“As it is written, this bill will have a tremendous impact on the every day lives of all Georgians and will cost the State quite a bit of money defending it from the several lawsuits already planned,” says Libertarian Party of Georgia Legislative Director Jeff Sexton. “We are calling on Representatives to truly get serious about immigration, and enact genuine reform that respects the rights of all individuals.”
One other aspect troubling the Libertarian Party of Georgia is the provision within that allows law enforcement officers to indefinitely detain anyone unable to provide their driver’s license or other “proof” document. HB 87 allows for anyone forgetting their driver’s license to be jailed even after release would normally be required without probable cause. It also re-introduces the secure and verifiable document issue, something that has landed the state in the courts as a defendant for the way Georgia tried to use it in election law… another action that could cost the state significant legal bills to defend.
“This bill is a reaction to a poor national immigration policy, and it acts to treat a symptom, rather than cure the underlying illness. That illness is the cost of the welfare state, and neither Democrats nor Republicans are willing to address it,” explained Brett Bittner, the Party’s Executive Director. “Instead, they’ve politicized the immigration issue to the point that we can no longer have a discussion about a solution that works for every Georgian.”
“Our main economic engines, agriculture, poultry, and manufacturing, will be hit hardest by the proposed legislation,” Bittner says further. “They will find themselves with an increased cost of labor and compliance, or they will simply close up shop, because the arduous regulations are simply too much.”
Currently, HB 87 has been placed in the House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee, chaired by HB 87 co-sponsor Rep Rich Golick (R-Smyrna), where it is scheduled to have a hearing this Friday, February 4, at 9:30am. Others listed as co-sponsors include Katie Dempsey (R-Rome), Rick Austin (R-Demorest), Stephen Allison(R-Blairsville), and Edward Lindsey (R-Atlanta).
The Libertarian Party is Georgia’s third largest political party and the only party in Georgia promoting fewer taxes, less government and personal liberty for all Georgians. To learn more, please visit www.LPGeorgia.com
###
Contact: Greta Langhenry
Communications Director
The Libertarian Party of Georgia
(404) 590 – 1109
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/24/AR2010092401774.html
Any questions?
Where did I threaten violence?
The policy you support uses regime violence against peaceful people (not “invaders” as you mischaracterize them).
No, they don’t contribute more than they cost. They have been a net drag on the system for the most part.
False, and I have included the links and sources to back them up before. I may or may not be bothered to do so again.
Immigrants work harder for less, and if they are undocumented, they frequently pay into the regime (via payroll taxes under fake SSNs) but can never collect.
Furthermore, even if I was wrong, that would in no shape or form justify state initiation of coercion (violence) to interfere in mutually voluntary behaviors, including willing landlords and employers renting to and hiring people that “violated” an imaginary border which is not a legitimate property line and didn’t jump through an impossible set of hoops.
Human beings can be illegal.
Bullshit.
Importing people
People are people, not raw materials. They don’t get “imported” unless you are talking about the slave trade.
simply because they agree with and further your political agenda
They don’t agree with my political agenda for the most part, and whether they do or not has no bearing on any collectivist entity being justified in violating their natural rights.
is not a fair democracy
I’m for freedom, not democracy.
It would be no different than shipping people from one congressional district to another for the sake of winning a political race.
Preventing them from moving from one congressional district to another so you can hang on to power is a more apt analogy.
@8
Where did I threaten violence?
@paulie
No, they don’t contribute more than they cost. They have been a net drag on the system for the most part.
And yes. Human beings can be illegal. Importing people simply because they agree with and further your political agenda is not a fair democracy. It would be no different than shipping people from one congressional district to another for the sake of winning a political race.
@#1:”In fact, I believe the Libertarians would soon be overwhelmed to the point of near extiction by invading socialists or communists were it left up to simple market forces to repel or discourage them”
Yeah, that’s why we need a socialist police state to prevent people from engaging in voluntary, non-violent behavior! Have I got that just about right, Davi?
DR @6: “Yes; That’s what they are….invading hordes. ”
You are a bigot.
I am simply not threatened by people whom the fates happened to have born a few miles south of me.
I am a little threatened by people who would condone violence against others so blithely.
Yes; That’s what they are….invading hordes.
That’s just ludicrous.
The vast majority of incoming immigrants, illegal or no, are not going to join libertarian ranks.
Neither are most native born Ameericans. At least not yet. Maybe not ever. Maybe they will in time. So?
Bankrupting the state(s) is being done way ahead of, and without much help at all from, any bills designed or implemented to eject illegals (sic).
No human being is illegal, and no good comes from worsening the bankruptcy with draconian anti-liberty measures such as this one.
spending big money servicing illegals (sic)
Undocumented workers contribute much more than they cost.
Yes; That’s what they are….invading hordes. But you stray from the topic. The vast majority of incoming immigrants, illegal or no, are not going to join libertarian ranks. Bankrupting the state(s) is being done way ahead of, and without much help at all from, any bills designed or implemented to eject illegals. Liberal spending is one big problem, and coincidently, many states are spending big money servicing illegals in some fashion or another
We have a winner! What an utterly dunderheaded phrase. Invading hordes? Come on…
@3
Or maybe those people making that characterization would likely be, um, not fucking idiots.
@2
Sure. Those people making that characterization would likely be greedy people hoping to obtain something for next to nothing.
Libertarians don’t like to characterize people seeking work as invading hordes.
Some might characterize an influx of hard workers not accustomed to unemployment insurance as a likely economic boon.
Yes,
Libertarians tend to believe that invading hordes will cease to exist if the government sponsored benefits are cut off. Unfortunately this logic is not supported in history. Neighbors often covet each others property and domain. At this point, invasion routes are far too ingrained to stop by mere suggestion. In fact, I believe the Libertarians would soon be overwhelmed to the point of near extiction by invading socialists or communists were it left up to simple market forces to repel or discourage them